Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2015
Estimating the diagnostic accuracy of rheumatoid factor in UK primary care: a study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Miller Anne, Nightingale Alison L, Sammon Cormac J, Mahtani Kamal R, Holt Tim A, McHugh Neil J, Luqmani Raashid A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of RF as a test for RA in primary care and its impact on referral times using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.
METHODS: We identified all patients with a first RF test recorded in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2008 and those diagnosed with RA within 2 years of testing. We calculated likelihood ratios (LRs), sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of RF for a diagnosis of RA. We compared time to hospital referral in those testing positive and negative using Kaplan-Meier failure curves and log-rank tests.
RESULTS: Of 62 436 first RF tests, 4679 (7.5%) were positive. There were 1753 incident cases of RA, of which 57.8% were seropositive. The positive LR for RF was 9.5 (95% CI 9.0, 10.0) and the negative LR was 0.5 (95% CI 0.4, 0.5). Sensitivity and specificity were 57.8% (95% CI 55.4%, 60.1%) and 93.9% (95% CI 93.7%, 94.1%) and the positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 21.4% (95% CI 20.3%, 22.6%) and 98.7% (95% CI 98.6%, 98.8%), respectively. Median time to first hospital contact after the first RF test in those with seropositive vs seronegative results was 54 days (95% CI 49, 58) vs 150 (95% CI 147, 152).
CONCLUSION: Only 2.8% of patients undergoing RF testing were diagnosed with RA, suggesting that RF is used to screen patients with musculoskeletal symptoms rather than those with more specific features of RA. A positive RF test may be helpful in diagnosing RA in primary care but performs badly in excluding RA and may delay referral.
METHODS: We identified all patients with a first RF test recorded in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2008 and those diagnosed with RA within 2 years of testing. We calculated likelihood ratios (LRs), sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of RF for a diagnosis of RA. We compared time to hospital referral in those testing positive and negative using Kaplan-Meier failure curves and log-rank tests.
RESULTS: Of 62 436 first RF tests, 4679 (7.5%) were positive. There were 1753 incident cases of RA, of which 57.8% were seropositive. The positive LR for RF was 9.5 (95% CI 9.0, 10.0) and the negative LR was 0.5 (95% CI 0.4, 0.5). Sensitivity and specificity were 57.8% (95% CI 55.4%, 60.1%) and 93.9% (95% CI 93.7%, 94.1%) and the positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 21.4% (95% CI 20.3%, 22.6%) and 98.7% (95% CI 98.6%, 98.8%), respectively. Median time to first hospital contact after the first RF test in those with seropositive vs seronegative results was 54 days (95% CI 49, 58) vs 150 (95% CI 147, 152).
CONCLUSION: Only 2.8% of patients undergoing RF testing were diagnosed with RA, suggesting that RF is used to screen patients with musculoskeletal symptoms rather than those with more specific features of RA. A positive RF test may be helpful in diagnosing RA in primary care but performs badly in excluding RA and may delay referral.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAgedArthritis, RheumatoidBiomarkersDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Physicians'Predictive Value of TestsPrimary Health CarePrognosisReferral and ConsultationRetrospective StudiesRheumatoid FactorRisk FactorsSensitivity and SpecificityUnited Kingdom